risking a free card

While we are on the subject of analyzing 7CSFAP, there is one play that I am not sure about.


On page 78-79 it states that if you have KK/6Q and your opponent has xx/8h9h you should check since the money will be put in anyway.


Basically this is risking a free card by making a deceptive play. IS the logic that by checking here your opponent will also likely lead on fifth street if you check, so you can checkraise on fifth if he catches a blank? This would risk a free card again on fifth street, and many players will just take the free card on fifth street with a draw.


The other logic I can think of is that your opponent will certainly call a bet here, and if he catches another flush card you essentially will just be calling to the river or folding, so why put more money in. This, in my mind is just weak poker, and once again if all he has is a threeflush with possibly a pair he will just take the free card.


When I play I bet most of the time in this situation, and when I check it is usually to vary my play. Am I missing part of the logic behind this play?


Pat

Good question. I don't have my copy of 7CSFAP in front of me, so I assume the authors assumed the opponent hit a card (9h) that surely helped him, maybe a lot: (9 9)8 9; (6h 7h)8h 9h; (Ah Kh)8h 9h; (9c 10h)8h 9h, etc. Your question, I think, and mine, is what do I accomplish by checking? Do I check-call the rest of the hand, if my opponent continues to bet? Is the logic that, if my opponent checks behind me on Fourth St., I can expect to take the pot with a bet on Fifth? Like you, I'm not comfortable giving a free card in this spot.


If I bet on Fourth St., it seems to me that I would welcome a raise (Trips would likely wait for Fifth St.), since in most cases it would probably be a free card raise. Then, If my opponent doesn't hit another heart, I can bet out on Fifth St. and see what he wants to do. Most players on a draw, heads up, won't put in another raise here. If he hits another heart, I don't think it would be wrong to check-fold if I haven't improved.


Perhaps the authors are saying that this is a situation where one can be out played, and requires caution. Just a thought.


Tom D

I thought they were saying you may not be much of a favorite here if the card did help your opponent, but you want to see another card, so why risk having to pay two bets. Their thinking is that a solid opponent will perhaps put you on a draw that didn't get help

and bet into your apparent weakness. I think the point is playing 4th street here for one bet instead of 2...

there is lots of things going on. by checking you also confuse for those times you dont have something and were on an ante steal. by checking you dont pay two bets if you didnt want to. by checking you get the same result as betting most of the time but having your hand disguised. no one will ever check with you here with a three flush or three straight and a pair unless he has lots of money to sustain himself. also you get to make great plays on fifth and sixth by checking. etc etc

There are several reasons like Ray Zee pointed out, but I think the main reason you should check here is not to pay two bets. In the higher games you will get raised more times than not if you bet into a board like 7h 6h, by opponents trying to get a free card. And if you check, 90% of the time your opponent will bet at you. So why not check (gaining deception) and see what developes on 5th St. for one bet instead of two. Then play your hand from there.


Knock'em Dead


Mike

I think that risking two bets isn't a that big trouble in this situation. But I see the point. I may be a bit risky.


I know that I would go for the bet.